I spent 5 years a speechwriter in the US House and Senate and left to study political theory. I just published a book on the rhetoric from ancient Rome to the present. AMA!

Is this the first ever AMA in which we are actively encouraged to ask rhetorical questions?

Are rhetorical questions not an extremely important figure of speech?

How does one breach the speech writing industry? What qualifications or prerequisites did you or your colleagues hold to gain such a position?

Speech writing is something I've always been interested in. But I've yet to see a speech writing position offered through Indeed or LinkedIn in my many years of job searching. It feels like more of a who you know type of thing in order to get your foot in the door, despite the what you know aspect being equally important.

For a congressional job, you pretty much need to intern on the Hill, and express an interest in going down the press secretary route rather than the legislative aide route - though both will need to write up small speeches for members, the press folks usually do the bigger ones. You'll never see Congressional jobs on any job sites, it's 95% word of mouth and being there at the right time when a spot opens up.

I second this post. In my case, it was a bit of an odd route--I applied to a job at a private speechwriting company. After a few rounds of interviews, they turned out not to have the budget to hire me, but they were kind enough to pass my info on to Sen. Dodd's office when he had an opening. So there was a lot of luck involved. But as the post above says, it helps to have interned on the Hill, which I did and probably gave me some credibility in the eyes of Dodd's office.

On that last point, that's why it's so important to pay interns a living wage. If not, then the main route to jobs like speechwriter, press secretary, legislative assistant, etc.--and further on down the line, chief of staff, communications director, etc.--is closed off to a lot of people who would otherwise excel at those jobs.

How has political speechwriting adapted to the need for soundbites in the modern media and social media landscape? Very few speeches are listened to in their entirety by the majority of the audience these days, but isn't every speech vulnerable to being cut up into pull quotes to the point where the message is lost?

Yep, I think that sound-bite-ification has a big impact on rhetoric, mainly because you can't develop a real argument over the course of a snippet. I certainly remember being encouraged to develop memorable "pull quotes" when writing speeches, and these would then be emphasized in press releases promoting the speeches.

From the historical perspective, I should note that what we'd call "soundbites" have always been a part of rhetoric. One famous bite from Cicero (which he got in trouble for because of its political implications) was "Cedant arma togae," or "Let arms yield to the toga [of peace]," which made a splash but also controversially sounded as if he were claiming that eloquence was more important than military glory. So rhetorical audiences have always singled out lines that struck them as interesting--the big difference, I think, is that attention spans are shorter. For comparison, look at a speech like "On the Crown" by Demosthenes, or one of Cicero's forensic speeches, and keep in mind that these were hours-long performances addressed to popular, not elite, audiences.

What are a few tips for someone to use in their speeches and writing immediately?

I would love to read your book, but if I had to write a speech for tomorrow, what could I do now?

Read my book! (JK)

The most important piece of advice I got from a former White House speechwriter was that you should always remember speeches are written for the "ear," not the "eye." The audience is listening, which means you have to break down arguments into smaller bites, use rhythm and repetition to promote memorability, and recap throughout. Lots of eloquent essays wouldn't work as speeches, and lots of famous speeches seem a little dull on the page--so really keep in mind that these are different media and should be approached as such.

Who do you think is the greatest modern American orator?

Totally unoriginal opinion, but: Obama.

However, I talk a bit about Obama's impact on political persuasion in the Intro of my book. I think that in the long run, he'll be remembered less for how eloquent he was individually, and more for how his campaigns pushed the frontiers of political analytics and "quantified persuasion." As I write in the Intro, I don't think those are great developments on the whole.

Is it a safe assumption that when a sitting president or politician is making an address they're always reading from a speech and if so how often do they write the remarks themselves? Obama definitely had a knack for public speaking that seems wholly absent these days. Personally the first time I heard saw a video of James Baldwin speak I was basically convinced that he was the gold standard. Of course the circumstances are different but do you think that reading from prepared remarks idk blunts some of the spirit of the words and ideas that are being conveyed?

Yeah, I've seen some clips of Baldwin speaking--e.g., debating William F. Buckley at Oxford--and he's a legend. I think top-level politicians are almost always reading from remarks unless they're speaking at a press conference or similar event. Even in that case, they've been thoroughly prepped on possible questions and responses.

I think how much they write the remarks varies. I did read that Obama was personally very involved in writing a lot of his remarks, but I think that may be more than the average politician is. In my experience, the people I worked for were more involved the bigger the speech was. In a speech to a big audience or on an important occasion, they'd suggest ideas, add lines of their own, and be thoroughly involved in the editing process. In speeches that were less of a big deal, less so.

Does this blunt some of the spirit of the words that are being conveyed? Maybe, but I think the bigger issue is what in the book I call "spontaneity," or risk-taking in political speech. This can be done with a prepared text or without. BUT it's interesting to me that in the ancient context, it was expected that speeches would be memorized and given from memory. One of the reasons Quintilian explicitly gives for this is that if you're speaking from memory rather than a text, it's easier to adapt to what you see from the audience as you proceed. So when there's no written text, I think there is more opportunity for that kind of interplay between speaker and audience.

Ah, I love James Baldwin! I totally agree with you that he indeed is a gold standard in speech.

Feels like we don't have intellectual icons like Baldwin anymore. I think they're out there but how do you stand out from all the trainwrecks and side shows? He understood America in a way that was so undeniably piercing. Commanded attention. The content was stone but the delivery was silk.

His books are also life changing. He had a strong conviction and genuinely fought for racial justice. One of the most authentic public figures there ever was.

Absolutely. I read Notes of a Native Son a couple summers ago and towards the end I think he has an essay describing his experience during a riot, so having been in Minneapolis it felt very serendipitous.

I haven't started yet, but I'm hoping to write a chapter on Baldwin for my next book. Glad to see so much interest in him here.

Is there a particular speech that you wrote which (you believe) resulted in a material change because of its impact?

Honestly, I don't think so. One of the things I write about in the book is the way in which rhetoric has changed in the age of mass democracy and mass media: persuasion is everywhere, but at the same time it's nowhere in particular. Because there is such a greater quantity of political speech, it's a really rare occasion on which on speech in particular causes something to happen. Rather, I think of what I did (and of what most speeches do) as being something like a drop in the river--I hope that they contributed in their way (and I'm proud of being there for things like the passage of the ACA, imperfect as it is), but I don't think any one speech moved the needle on its own.

Can an untalented politician ruin a well-written speech? Do you customize words to match the person's voice/style?

I'm sure it's possible. The people I worked for were really experienced in delivering speeches, so that didn't really happen in my experience, but I'm sure it could. To answer your second question, I do find that some politicians have different preferences (some prefer stories, some prefer statistics, etc.). But a more experienced colleague told me at the start of my career not to overthink the individual "voice," because every speaker will make the text their own in the course of actually reading it.

3 questions:

1. Aside from your own, what books would you recommend reading to become more a more effective public speaker?

2. In your opinion, what is the best speech made so far in the 21st Century?

3. Who would you currently rank among the best better-known public speakers?

1. I really benefited from "The Sense of Structure" by George Gopen, who was my undergraduate advisor in English. Not about speechwriting in particular, but about effective writing in general. Short and very accessible.

2. This is tough, because I'm not as familiar as I should be with the context outside of the US. But at least in the US, one that stands out to me is Obama's speech on the 50th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery march: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Selma_50th_anniversary_speech.

3. I wish I had a great answer on this, but if you read the book you'd see that I'm pretty pessimistic about the state of political oratory (at least in the US) in general right now. That's because I think it's characterized by (a) "establishment" political figures being as safe and risk-averse as possible in their rhetoric; and (b) populist or demagogic figures going way over the top as if overcompensating for (a). I'm sure there are exceptions (I happened to tune in during Jamie Raskin's speech during the 2nd Trump impeachment and found it very moving), but I think focusing on individual orators rather than the factors that I see harming oratory as a whole is sort of a red herring.

The Sense of Structure is $80 on Amazon. Do you have any other recommendations that may not break the bank?

Ah, too bad--I'm sorry it costs so much. Here's another option--I haven't read it myself but I've heard good things: https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Eloquence-Secrets-Perfect-Phrase/dp/042527618X

Have you ever written a speech in which you did not believe it’s content?

Rarely--because I was a Democrat and was working for fairly mainstream members of the party--but it did happen. Once, for instance, I remember writing speeches on opposite sides of an issue when I left Sen. Dodd's office and started with Rep. Hoyer.

That sort of thing wasn't the main reason why I left speechwriting, but it played a part. The bigger thing was not writing things you explicitly disagreed with, but finding that you don't really get to think your own thoughts when you're writing for someone else. Disagreements don't really arise in that context, which was troubling for me in its own way. So one reason why I became an academic was so I could just be responsible to myself for what I wrote.

While trying to remain neutral on political views, which currently elected politician is giving the most effective speeches today? (US or abroad)

Remaining totally neutral on politics (because I certainly don't like him), I think it's hard to deny that Trump is giving effective speeches. As I write in the book, I think his performances give a sense of riskiness and spontaneity that is lacking in a lot of mainstream rhetoric--that is, he's responding to a real need. I also go on to say that I think the riskiness and spontaneity he offers are ultimately pretty fake. But Trump's appeal and effectiveness say something about the pretty sorry state of our rhetorical culture as a whole, I'd say. In other words, you can't take him in isolation from what's broken in general.

How many speeches did you write that you knew were total horseshit or political theater?

I mean, they're all political theater. But that doesn't really bother me, because politics is theatrical. Performance, emotional appeal, what I call "stylistic abundance"--these are all integral to politics, because we're emotional and theatrical creatures, and they're all a part of how we make collective decisions.

As for "total horseshit": one of the things I wanted to write for my book was going to be called "A Theory of Intransitive Bullshit," which would have distinguished "bullshitting at" (bad) from "bullshitting with" (okay). That didn't make the final draft, but it's still on the to-do list.

Did you ever have what you felt was a great speech that just fell completely flat on delivery?

Oh yeah. I can't remember any one in particular, but part of the weirdness of writing for others (especially busy politicians) is that the words are "for" them but not "by" them--and quite often, they're seeing the speech for the first time right as they're giving it (or right before). So on occasion, I would detect a bit of "what is this crap?" in the delivery. But because these were pros, I doubt the audience would detect that in the same way.

I remember that my first speech for Rep. Hoyer had a long bit on the mythological origins of the "caduceus" (the symbol with the two snakes twined around a staff that is used by medical groups like the AMA). I thought it was very smart, but that definitely got a "what is this crap?" so I cut it out with the Greek mythology after that.

I assume you've watched The West Wing.

The characters Will Bailey, Sam Seaborn and Toby Ziegler - as speechwriting goes, did the show get it right? Any bones to pick?

I came to ask this.

You're not going to believe this, but I've never watched an episode of it. The main reason is that I never wanted to watch a show depicting something like my actual job (same with "The Chair" now that I'm an academic). One, it wouldn't help me relax after work to see people doing "my" job. But more importantly, those shows always make the job seem so much more cool and glamorous than the reality, which would make it hard to go in the next day.

Thanks for doing this! The book looks excellent. I have a couple of questions:

Should we think of rhetoric as inherently deceptive, morally unstable, and therefore only an imitation of genuine knowledge? Or is rhetoric something more positive, like a way to organize our thoughts and reach genuine knowledge?

Does the prevalence of rhetoric imply (and perhaps even cause) political instability, or does rhetoric help ensure political stability?

Good questions. On the first, I'd say that that's definitely Plato's critique and worth taking seriously, though I don't subscribe to it. Not an original opinion, but I think of rhetoric as suitable for situations of contingency and uncertainty, in which we need to judge between better or worse outcomes, but "genuine knowledge" is not the criterion.

On the second, that's also something I address in the book. Going back to at least Tacitus, critics of rhetoric have argued that great eloquence coincides with times of great political instability--so if we're living in times lacking in eloquence, that's good for us, because we wouldn't want to live through the political conditions that produce great eloquence. I think this is worth taking seriously as well, though I also disagree with it, because I subscribe to Edmund Burke's idea that "sublime," excessive, or over-the-top rhetoric can actually serve to shock us into judging more clearly.

Isn’t that contrary to what we’re seeing today? No eloquence and political instability?

That's a good question, and I don't have a confident answer to it. But I think part of it has to do with how you measure political instability. Given that Tacitus (and others who echoed his argument) were talking about full-on constitutional breakdown and civil war, we in the US are fortunately not there (yet?). So maybe today's politics aren't unstable by that standard.

When it comes to how politicians communicate, do you notice any differences between the United States and Canada?

I haven't noticed huge differences, but I do think there's something to the stereotype that Canadian politics are a bit quieter and more subdued (though that's potentially changing). I think the major difference is that partisan polarization is more advanced in the US than in Canada (which you see on issues like response to vaccines). I think having more than 2 parties also plays an impact: for instance, in the last federal election, it seemed that O'Toole's strategy was in part to convince progressive voters that he wasn't so different from Trudeau, so that they could safely vote for the NDP even at the cost of kicking the Liberals out. So it seems that factors like these lead politicians here to put more emphasis on winning over the middle.

Oh, could I ask a second question, this one about your book? I'm a big history nerd, and I wondered if you had any insight into Apollonius Molon. Both Gaius Julius Caesar and Marcus Tullius Cicero travelled to Rhodes to study rhetoric from him. How did he become such a famous orator that two of the soon-to-be-most-famous Romans of all time went to learn from him? What was he doing in Rhodes for a living that would make him a world famous public speaker? Why wasn't he giving speeches (and public speaking classes) in Rome or Alexandria? Do we know anything about why he was so well regarded beyond his two most famous pupils?

Really interesting question, and I wish I could answer in particular, but I don't know very much about Molon. I would say that higher-level rhetorical training was something that a lot of Roman elites went for after finishing their basic educations, so it would be possible for someone like Molon to make a living off of their patronage and fees. Again, I don't know why he in particular was in Rhodes rather than Rome or Alexandria, but one interesting thing that shows up in Cicero's works on rhetoric (like De oratore) is the Roman suspicion of Greek learning and intellectuals. Despite the fact that people like Cicero benefited directly from Greek rhetoric and philosophy, Roman culture was suspicious enough of "foreign" intellectual influences that it was often best not to publicize the fact. In an earlier generation of the Roman republic, in fact, the formal teaching of rhetoric was banned. So it's plausible that formally studying rhetoric was something you went abroad to do, so as not to make a big spectacle of it at home. Of course, this was in the process of changing as Cicero wrote, and there were a number of Roman rhetorical schools that taught in Latin in later years (Quintilian ran one, for instance).

Isn't that a bit like quiting as a brain surgeon to go to med school?

Well, those who can't do, teach, right?

Actually, I don't think that's the analogy, because I don't see what I do in political theory or the study of rhetoric as learning how to write effective speeches (or teaching others how to). It's about thinking in broader terms about the role rhetoric and eloquence have played in history, and can play today. To do that, it helps to have done some rhetoric myself (because I think of myself as my own BS detector)--but I wouldn't suggest studying political theory in order to become a better speechwriter.

Fair. Do you ever regret giving up your front row seat? It seems like it would be a good place to be to study.

Yeah, sometimes I do miss it. But I've also always wanted to be an academic and a writer, so I'm grateful for the time I spent in politics, but glad to be where I am now.

How did you get the speechwriting job? Any specific qualifications? Or is it a matter of who you know?

Reposting from further up the thread:

In my case, it was a bit of an odd route--I applied to a job at a private speechwriting company. After a few rounds of interviews, they turned out not to have the budget to hire me, but they were kind enough to pass my info on to Sen. Dodd's office when he had an opening. So there was a lot of luck involved. But as the post above says, it helps to have interned on the Hill, which I did and probably gave me some credibility in the eyes of Dodd's office.

On that last point, that's why it's so important to pay interns a living wage. If not, then the main route to jobs like speechwriter, press secretary, legislative assistant, etc.--and further on down the line, chief of staff, communications director, etc.--is closed off to a lot of people who would otherwise excel at those jobs.

Hey Rob! I actually have a question about your experience as a speechwriter, if that’s ok.

I used to (briefly) be a financial journalist before switching to working in finance, basically to pay the bills. I have always held on to the idea of possibly being a speechwriter one day — I would love to write speeches for a finance minister, financial regulator, central banker, legislator with an interest in economics, etc. All the speechwriters I know are former veteran journalists of 15-30 years, which isn’t a path I could afford to take — I didn’t have the family connections to get good gigs and couldn’t afford to live on the low pay of a regular beat reporter.

What advice do you have for an aspiring speechwriter? Particularly one without the traditional journalism/politics background?

My main suggestion is that it helps to have a portfolio, even a small one, of speeches you'd written in the past just to show that you have some experience. So when I interviewed for my first formal job, I could say that I wrote some very brief remarks back when I was volunteering for a local candidate in my hometown. It wasn't that the remarks were so great, just that I could say I'd done it, which gave me a little more credibility.

So if possible, I'd recommend offering to write some brief remarks for someone given the opportunity--maybe someone in your company, maybe a local candidate you volunteer for. Then you can at least check that credibility box when an opening arises. I will say that despite your non-traditional path, I think subject matter expertise (finance in your case) is a lot more valuable than writing expertise. I hope this is helpful!

Sometimes a political speech from a senator or the president has some really good quips or jokes. Do speechwriters like yourself write those as well or is there a secret staff of comedians to 'punch up' certain speeches (where it's appropriate, the Correspondent's Dinner for example)?

I hear that for big events (like the Correspondents Dinner) they actually do use professional comedy writers. I never wrote for something like that, but it would've been fun!

How can we as citizens best combat polarisation?

I wish I had a better answer to this. I recommend Ezra Klein's "Why We're Polarized"--one suggestion he has is that we should pay more attention to local politics, where the stakes are more immediate and polarization is less severe.

But as I write in the Conclusion of my book, I think the framing of what we can do as citizens to fix polarization is mistaken. A lot of the talk about polarization blames it on us--on our "tribalism," or our inability to talk civilly with people with whom we disagree. I really see polarization as driven by elites, and I see "tribalism" as effectively a public strike from listening. I try to explain why in the Conclusion--but in general, one thing we can do is to stop blaming ourselves.

Outside of politics speechwriting, what other avenues have you explored? Music Industry, Movie(s) Industry, normal local media outlets, etc. I see based off what you said politics has always been the goal, so did you obtain that and never venture outside of it?

I've always been interested in writing as well as politics. When I was working on the Hill, I also co-wrote a book about Cato the Younger called Rome's Last Citizen. And while I was in grad school, I co-wrote another biography of Claude Shannon (the founder of information theory) called A Mind at Play. So I've always tried to keep a hand in writing outside of politics, but I've never really ventured into things like music or movies.

Wow, I had no idea you co-wrote Rome's Last Citizen. I would just like to thank you for an excellent biography of a figure whom I feel has been criminally neglected by modern historians. It does an amazing job interrogating the man behind the myth, without sliding into either hagiogrophy or contempt the way most contemporary discussions of Cato tend to do.

Thank you! Writing about Roman rhetoric really made sense to me as a next step after working on the Cato book.

A follow-up: Which fictional politicians do you think could actually have given good speeches in the real world? Or to rephrase: What do you think the entertainment industry gets wrong about speeches and rhetoric?

I think there's lots of great fictional speechwriting in TV and movies--I'll probably lose corny points for this, but there's a reason Aaron Sorkin is popular. What the TV and movie depictions miss, I think, is that in "real life" the rewards for a really eloquent speech are much lower, and the costs for failure are much higher. With that risk-reward calculus, I simply don't think there is the premium on political eloquence in the "real world" that entertainment would lead us to believe.

I had a top secret clearance and got to follow one of the presidents around (way before twitter) and knowing how much of the presidents day is dictated and all the things he wasn't allowed to do really makes me wonder...

How does the Presidential twitter account work? Like surely a drunk tweet could start ww3 so i am guessing each tweet has to be ran through a few people (speech writer for consistency, maybe someone from secret service)?

I wish I knew! One thing I did notice is that, in my experience, the press staff would work on tweets and social media (though these were still fairly new when I was on the Hill). I think what you describe must be the case, but in Trump's case, it really did seem like he was just firing them off from his phone.

Are politicians really enemies or are they friends behind closed doors and just act like enemies?

Honestly I think it depends on the politicians. I do hear from reading the news that politicians are genuinely less friendly across the aisle these days (though I don't have any special insight into that from experience). I think that's an effect of polarization rather than a cause--I don't think politics would become suddenly better if politicians hung out for drinks more often, but I do think there has been a change.

surely a speechwriter would proofread his writing

🤷

One of those days, I guess. Gonna blame it on supply chains, and also covid.

Why and how does horrible rhetoric inspire and motivate people?

For example, setting aside politics, and just focusing on rhetoric. Former President Trump seems like a rambling nonsensical speaker. His rhetoric is not very cohesive. He often goes off script, which makes it even more nonsensical. Yet he is the focal point and sage to many individuals.

And what is funny, is his successor Biden, is just as nonsensical on his extemporaneous speeches. Or is nonsensical the name of the game these days?

Why and how does horrible rhetoric inspire and motivate people?

Reposted from up-thread:

As I write in the book, I think Trump's performances give a sense of riskiness and spontaneity that is lacking in a lot of mainstream rhetoric--that is, he's responding to a real need. I also go on to say that I think the riskiness and spontaneity he offers are ultimately pretty fake. But Trump's appeal and effectiveness say something about the pretty sorry state of our rhetorical culture as a whole, I'd say. In other words, you can't take him in isolation from what's broken in general.

When writing speeches, how much do you adapt them to the voice of the person who will deliver them? Could you write a powerful speech for a politician you are unfamiliar with?

I do find that some politicians have different preferences (some prefer stories, some prefer statistics, etc.). But a more experienced colleague told me at the start of my career not to overthink the individual "voice," because every speaker will make the text their own in the course of actually reading it.

Rob, Thanks for doing this AMA. Looking forward to your responses. A couple of questions for you:

What speech given by a leader is your favorite and why?

Typically, how much input do you receive from the speech giver on a particular speech?

Finally, what makes for a good speech?

Thank you again!

Up the thread, I mentioned how Obama's speech on the 50th anniversary of the Selma-Montgomery march is one I still teach my students: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/07/remarks-president-50th-anniversary-selma-montgomery-marches

On your second question, reposting from up-thread: I think how much they write the remarks varies. I did read that Obama was personally very involved in writing a lot of his remarks, but I think that may be more than the average politician is. In my experience, the people I worked for were more involved the bigger the speech was. In a speech to a big audience or on an important occasion, they'd suggest ideas, add lines of their own, and be thoroughly involved in the editing process. In speeches that were less of a big deal, less so.

What makes a good speech? In my book, I talk about the classical idea of "decorum"--the fit between words, audience, and situation. That's an abstract way to think about it, but I find it very helpful.

Do you think Ryerson should have changed its name?

This is a tough one for me, because I've only been in Canada for a few years--which makes me think it's better to listen than to speak up about the history of a place I just got to. That said, I think the name change makes sense: if a significant part of your student population, and the population of the community, feels that the name antagonizes or alienates them--such that the see the name of the university and essentially read it as "Not (Fully) For You"--that seems like a good reason for change in itself.

Do professional speech writers talk to each other about their craft regularly - historically and contemporarily? Is there a purposeful, ongoing dialogue of evolving and responsive rhetoric playing out that most people don't notice? Like how schools of art develop over time in response to each other's work?

That's a good question, and I wish I were more aware of "schools" of speechwriting. Unfortunately, my experience was that the day-to-day is so hectic and fast-paced that there isn't a lot of time to stop and reflect on the craft parts of it, though maybe that was just my experience. However, I did get some really valuable insights and advice from more experienced writers (I mentioned some up-thread), and I do think a good bit of this kind of informal mentoring goes on.

Which sentence(s) were you most proud of?

Maybe not one sentence in particular, but I'm very proud of writing speeches around the passage of the Affordable Care Act back in 2009-10. Despite its problems (which are even clearer to me now that I live in Canada), it was a big step toward universal health care, and I'm proud to have been a small part of it.

What are your top three speeches that you studied in the period?

Did you study Spartan rhetoric and is their laconic nature unique in history?

My favorite from the Book is Edmund Burke--love that 18th century rhetoric. I recommend "On Conciliation with the Colonies," "On the Nabob of Arcot's Debts," and his closing speech in the Warren Hastings impeachment.

I wish I got to the Spartans, but my book really starts with the Roman Republic.

Which era was your favorite? I've read MPs in the 18th century House of Commons were very witty and amusing while maintaining eloquence. Are our contemporary leaders a bit rhetorically lame by comparison?

Yep, that's my favorite too. See the note above about some Burke speeches I appreciated. Sadly, it's hard for politicians today to come up to that standard--in the book, I try to offer some reasons why that's the case.

How long did you take to choose the title of your book?

It was "Eloquence and Its Conditions" for a long time, ever since it began as my PhD dissertation. In the review process, one of the anonymous reviewers said it could use a punchier title, so I chose "Words on Fire," with the original title now the subtitle. The downside is that there are a few other books with that title, but when I talked to the editor about it, his opinion was that this would be okay, because this is a political theory book not directly competing with those others. That seemed to make sense to me.

What’s the most important thing for everyday people to understand about the rhetoric applied in politics today?

For better or worse, that it's very carefully crafted. As I write in my book, I wish it were crafted a little less carefully.

Did you ever meet Ben Stein and is he as weirdly cool as he seems?

Sorry, never met him. I bet he's cool, though.

Have you written any speeches that you now disagree with the premise of said speech? If so, what did you change your mind about, and why.

I've gotten this question a few times, so reposting from up-thread:

Rarely--because I was a Democrat and was working for fairly mainstream members of the party--but it did happen. Once, for instance, I remember writing speeches on opposite sides of an issue when I left Sen. Dodd's office and started with Rep. Hoyer.

That sort of thing wasn't the main reason why I left speechwriting, but it played a part. The bigger thing was not writing things you explicitly disagreed with, but finding that you don't really get to think your own thoughts when you're writing for someone else. Disagreements don't really arise in that context, which was troubling for me in its own way. So one reason why I became an academic was so I could just be responsible to myself for what I wrote.

Did you ever find that your personal political views on a topic didn't exactly align with the person who's speech you were writing? If so, how did you handle it?

I've gotten this question a few times, so reposting from up-thread:

Rarely--because I was a Democrat and was working for fairly mainstream members of the party--but it did happen. Once, for instance, I remember writing speeches on opposite sides of an issue when I left Sen. Dodd's office and started with Rep. Hoyer.

That sort of thing wasn't the main reason why I left speechwriting, but it played a part. The bigger thing was not writing things you explicitly disagreed with, but finding that you don't really get to think your own thoughts when you're writing for someone else. Disagreements don't really arise in that context, which was troubling for me in its own way. So one reason why I became an academic was so I could just be responsible to myself for what I wrote.

Hi Rob, longtime speech enthusiast and a former political science student/politics kid. I wanted to ask what the workflow was like for a speechwriter, i.e were you writing speeches constantly or only for major/particular events? How did you begin a project once it had been given to you and did you write more for the speaker or more for the audience( or secondary audience who might only catch a line from media outlets) the speaker would be addressing? Thank you very much!

I think the workflow really varied day by day as I remember. Some days I'd be really working all day on a major speech to a big group, or other days it would be lighter--something like a press release on unemployment or a brief floor statement. Usually the assignments came from the comms director or comms staff, or sometimes I'd help the legislative folks write a statement to describe a bill. I'd alway try to write for the particular audience the speaker was addressing--different groups have different interests, speaking to a university commencement is different from speaking to a trade group, etc. Sometimes the comms staff and I would try to write a bigger policy speech that would be given somewhere like a think tank, and then we'd try to think about how it would be received by the press more broadly.

Ever been tempted to write something just to make the person reading it look dumb?

Nah, I had to pay the rent and wasn't about to get fired on purpose.

My issue with politics is that it seems to always be one side blaming the other. No one seems to have any interest in actually improving the state of things, but rather they want to have their side getting credit for doing something good, and the opposition to be demonized.

Is there a way to have an open dialogue between the party's, or has that broken down and we are stuck with this partisan politics until the system collapses?

I wish I had a great answer to this--I would say that I talk about the kind of polarization you mention in the Conclusion of the book, and why I do think it's the fault of political elites rather than ordinary voters.

I also recommend "Why We're Polarized" by Ezra Klein. He has some insightful things to say about why there was more inter-party dialogue in US politics several generations ago, but also why this was in many ways a side-effect of features in US politics that we don't want to return, like Jim Crow and segregation.

Favorite political speech of all time?

Of all time?

https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/ps601/chapter/edmund-burke-on-conciliation-with-america/

When I watch videos of Hitler speaking, he doesn't sound particularly charismatic or particularly persuasive.

In your opinion, what are the things about Hitler's oratory that made it so good and so compelling?

I haven't studied Hitler in particular, though I agree with the comment below that it would help to know German. One person I do write about in the book is Carl Schmitt, who went on to become a leading Nazi legal theorist, but before that wrote some interesting things on rhetoric in the Weimar Germany era. Schmitt argued that rhetoric was in decline in his era because the German parliament had essentially become a sham--it was pretending to deliberate, but not actually the place where real decisions were made. So I think that context is important for understanding fascist rhetoric in general--it grew out of a disillusionment with liberal, parliamentary rhetoric that Schmitt expresses, but wasn't unique to him.

Let's say I were to write a speech on a huge topic – environmental change – what should I focus on?

I talk a bit about that in my conclusion to this paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/deliberative-sublime-edmund-burke-on-disruptive-speech-and-imaginative-judgment/3C1AFF1896BB3A42A34CB02C055317B2

Mainly, I write there that there's something to be said for what scholars of rhetoric called "the sublime"--the idea of fear, terror, or awe expressed in language as a way of helping us see things more clearly. I think there are a lot of opportunities to do that when thinking of the scale of environmental change.

There's public facing eloquence and private negotiating eloquence. Ie, Obama and Boehner. Who, in your mind, is the best politician (US or otherwise) of the past 20 years who has demonstrated their rhetorical ability at both public stumping and private log rolling?

Hard to say, because I wasn't privy to a lot of private negotiation. But I did occasionally sit in on meetings of the House committee chairs in the early Obama years, and one person who impressed me was Barney Frank.

Were you a fan of Robert Byrd? He was also a fan of Roman politics.

Yeah--I mean, not a big fan of his politics, but it was nice to have a real Roman history buff in the Senate. I actually read his book The Senate of the Roman Republic back when I was on the Hill. Pretty dull, as I remember, but I wish politicians wrote more books like that and fewer campaign tomes.

For a typical speech in Washington, how involved is the orator in the speechwriting process? How much of the language is actually their words? How much is actually their ideas? How much do you want them to be involved?

The bigger the speech, the more involved. For a big-deal speech, this could involve suggesting ideas and arguments beforehand, editing afterwards, inserting lines, etc. For smaller speeches, a lot less involvement. I genuinely did want them to be involved, because that meant they were invested in the speech and would really sell the delivery.

[deleted]

Sorensen's the GOAT, right? I actually got to shake his hand once. I really wanted to say, "I loved Profiles in Courage--great job!" but I chickened out.

Thanks for doing this AMA! How long do your speeches take you to write? What speech of yours are you proudest of?

Some I'd have to turn around in 30 minutes or less--some would be like college papers I'd do over the course of a few weeks. I'm proudest of my work to help with the Affordable Care Act.

What was the shortest notice you’ve received for having to produce an important speech? How did it turn out?

I think I pretty regularly had to get floor statements or press statements out the door in 30 minutes or so. They actually turned out okay! Mainly it was because when you work for someone long enough, you get a sense of the language, arguments, and phrases they like, and these are ready to hand.

Dan Carlin talked about how Gaius Gracchus was a passionate speaker, even ripping off his toga during a speech. In current politics, can excessive emotion during a speech or argument be positive?

I think emotion can definitely be helpful--as I tell my students, our emotions reflect and tell us what we value, so they're a valid part of making political judgments. And you're right that Gaius Gracchus was regarded as one of the most effective orators of his time.

Total rhetoric nerd question, sorry—is George A Kennedy in your references? Do you engage with his work at all, and if so, are there any points where you strongly disagree?

Yeah, he was very helpful for me as I was doing research. I can't think of anything where I strongly disagree with him, but he was really essential background reading for me.

Why are you writing about rhetoric if you dont’t have a PhD in rhetoric?

Many schools offer phd’s in rhetoric through comm departments.

I ask because i am a chemist.

There are a lot of great people writing about rhetoric in communications departments, but there's also a lot of writing on rhetoric from the perspective of political theory and political science (some of the big ones I've learned a lot from are Bryan Garsten, Danielle Allen, Jeff Green, Gary Remer, Daniel Kapust, Elizabeth Markovits), and that's the main literature I'm engaging with in my own work.

Honest question: To what extent should we even care about rhetorical skill in politicians? I know there's a long history tying together politics and rhetorics, but one could just as easily imagine an alternate world where politicians are judged purely on their policies.

This is something I write about in the book--I think rhetorical skill matters because to be good at it, you have to understand the views of your audience and show that you take them seriously. That's an important democratic value to me, and rhetoric can support rather than undermine it. Should we just judge purely on policies? Maybe in an ideal world, but I think that rhetoric--which is really just the art of making public judgments under conditions of uncertainty--is just how we figure out what policies to pursue. Evaluating policy is always going to be rhetorical, as far as I can see.

Have you given much thought to how media and social media is shaping rhetoric? It seems like the kart is fully behind the horse these days.

Yeah, I don't write about that much in the book, but I do think there's a lot to be said about that. I'm hardly the first person to talk about "social media bubbles," but I do think they have harmful effects on rhetoric--in that there's a lot less effort to win over those who may disagree, which traditionally has provided so much of force and drama of great rhetoric.

Are there resources that teach how to counter rhetorical arguments that are just designed as a tool for one-up-manship while purposefully distracting from the essence of the discussion at hand? I have seen some “I am very smart” types doing this with less eloquent and articulate participants, and would like to learn more about how to deconstruct such arguments.

I wish I could think of a particular resource for this, but none comes to mind right now. I would say that just by identifying this as a rhetorical technique, you're on the right track--one of the most effective responses to any kind of rhetorical technique is just to point it out, which can help the audience to take a critical step back from it and think about it. It's a bit similar to "mindfulness"--one of the best ways of dealing with anger is first to consciously acknowledge that you're angry (not that I'm great at this). Similarly, I think one way to start to dispel the power of a rhetorical technique is to make the audience mindful of it.

Did you ever happen to meet Ted Cruz? Is he as vile in person as he appears on camera?

Unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure.

[deleted]

Reposed from up-thread:

This is a tough one for me, because I've only been in Canada for a few years--which makes me think it's better to listen than to speak up about the history of a place I just got to. That said, I think the name change makes sense: if a significant part of your student population, and the population of the community, feels that the name antagonizes or alienates them--such that the see the name of the university and essentially read it as "Not (Fully) For You"--that seems like a good reason for change in itself.

Do you shop at the Eaton Mall near Ryerson?

Sometimes!

Hi Rob, are you the guy that the movie “Long Shot” with Seth Rogan was based off of?

Yep, totally, that was me. [citation needed]

Funnily enough, my wife has a celebrity crush on Seth Rogan, and because I'm also a Jewish guy with a beard I find that flattering.